You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The new rules are complicated. Here’s how to make sense of them if you’re shopping for an electric vehicle.

The Department of Treasury published new rules last year that will determine which new electric vehicles, purchased for personal use, will qualify for a $7,500 tax credit. They went into effect on April 18, 2023, and last for the next decade or so.
These new tax credit rules are complicated. The list of cars that qualify for the new tax credit can change from year to year — and even month to month. Many buyers in the EV market might have a few questions, including: Should I buy that new car now, or should I wait? Which cars qualify for the current tax credit, and which ones will earn the new one?
This is Heatmap’s guide to the new tax credit, why it matters, and what to keep in mind as you go EV shopping.
If you’re an ordinary American buying a brand-new EV to run errands and pick up the kids, these new rules apply to you. They will determine which cars you can get a federally funded discount on.
If you’re not buying a new car for personal use — because you’re getting it for your business, say, or because you’re buying a used EV — these new rules don’t apply to you. But you may qualify for other new subsidies. We get into those below.
And even if you are in that first category, you may discover it’s much cheaper to lease a new EV instead of buying it outright. We get into why below, too.
They completely change how the United States approaches the EV industry.
During the Bush and Obama administrations, the U.S. was focused mostly on getting automakers to begin to experiment with EVs. So it discounted the first 200,000 or so electric vehicles that each manufacturer sold by up to $7,500. If a company had cumulatively sold more than that number over time, as Tesla and General Motors eventually did, then the discount expired. By 2022, that had led to a peculiar situation where foreign automakers, such as Hyundai, could use the subsidy, while some of the largest American automakers couldn’t.
Now, U.S. policy is focused on two goals: (1) building up a domestic supply chain for EVs and (2) getting more EVs on the road. So the tax break is completely uncapped — any automaker can use it as many times as possible if they meet the criteria.
But many new requirements apply: Only cars that undergo final assembly in North America will qualify for any of the tax credit. Then, cars with a battery that was more than 50% made in North America will qualify for a $3,750 subsidy. And cars where at least 40% of the “critical minerals” used come from the U.S. or a country with whom we have a free-trade agreement will qualify for another $3,750 subsidy.
Those percentage-based requirements will ramp up over time. By 2029, for instance, 100% of a car’s battery and battery components must be made in North America.
Because Congress said so. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Democratic majorities in the House and Senate passed last year, mandated this change to the EV tax credit as part of its broad expansion of American climate policy.
Initially, fewer EVs will receive a subsidy under the new rules, Biden officials say. On a press call with reporters, a senior Treasury official argued that more cars will eventually qualify under the new rules than qualified under the old ones.
This year, at least 15 car or light trucks will receive some or all of the credit. Only some of those vehicles will qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit; some will qualify for a partial $3,750 tax credit. Here is the full list of qualifying models, along with the amount of the tax credit that they will earn:
• Audi Q5 TFSI e Quattro PHEV ($3,750)
• Cadillac LYRIQ ($7,500)
• Chevrolet Bolt ($7,500)
• Chevrolet Bolt EUV ($7,500)
• Chrysler Pacifica PHEV ($7,500)
• Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid ($3,750)
• Ford F-150 Lightning, Standard & Extended Range ($7,500)
• Jeep Wrangler PHEV 4xe ($3,750)
• Jeep Grand Cherokee PHEV 4xe ($3,750)
• Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring ($3,750)
• Rivian R1S, Dual Large & Quad Large ($3,750)
• Rivian R1T, Dual Large, Dual Max, & Quad Large ($3,750)
• Tesla Model X Long Range ($7,500)
• Tesla Model 3 Performance ($7,500)
• Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD ($3,500)
• Tesla Model Y AWD, Rear-Wheel Drive, & Performance ($7,500)
• Volkswagen ID.4 AWD PRO, PRO, S, & Standard ($7,500)
Some vehicles that earned the full tax credit in 2023, such as the Ford Mustang Mach E, don’t qualify for any benefit as of January 2, 2024.
Yes. A few examples: The Hummer EV, which costs more than $110,000 a piece, won’t qualify for either the new or old tax credit — it’s too expensive. And the Polestar 2 won’t qualify because it’s assembled in China.
Yes. Starting this year, the U.S. is preventing cars that receive too much manufacturing input from a “foreign entity of concern” — that is, China — from qualifying for any of the tax credit. This has reduced the number of vehicles that qualify for the $7,500 bonus.
This year, the government will also allow buyers to refund their EV tax credit at the dealership. That means buyers can now get up to a $7,500 discount at the moment when they buy their car instead of waiting until they file their taxes in the following year.
Yes. A married couple must have an adjusted gross income of less than $300,000 a year, and a single filer must have an AGI of less than $150,000 a year, to qualify for any aspect of the subsidy. A head-of-household must have an income of less than $225,000 a year.
Yes. Under the proposed rule, cars must have an MSRP below $55,000 to qualify for the credit. Vans, pickup trucks, and SUVs must have an MSRP below $80,000.
Yes. The Inflation Reduction Act also included a new $7,500 tax credit for EVs used for any commercial purpose. The Treasury Department is expected to interpret that provision to cover leasing, but it hasn’t announced the guidelines for that rule yet, so we don’t know for sure.
But the provision will probably tilt new EV drivers toward leasing their car rather than buying it outright, because the dealer should — emphasis on should — offer relative discounts on leasing vehicles as compared to buying them.
Yes. There’s also a new $4,000 tax credit for buying a used EV that costs $25,000 or less. It went into effect on January 1, 2023, so you can go ahead and use it today.
But note that it has even stricter income limits: Married couples can only take advantage of it if they make $150,000 or less, and other filers if they make $75,000 or less.
Here’s the list of cars that qualified for the $7,500 tax credit before April 18, 2023, according to the Department of Energy.
• Audi Q5 TFSI e Quattro (PHEV)
• BMW 330e *
• BMW X5 xDrive45e**
• Cadillac Lyriq
• Chevrolet Bolt
• Chevrolet Bolt EUV
• Chevrolet Silverado EV
• Chrysler Pacifica PHEV
• Ford E-Transit
• Ford Escape Plug-In Hybrid *
• Ford F-150 Lightning
• Ford Mustang Mach-E
• Genesis Electrified GV70
• Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe
• Jeep Wrangler 4xe
• Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring *
• Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring *
• Nissan Leaf
• Nissan Leaf (S, SL, SV, and Plus models)
• Rivian R1S
• Rivian R1T
• Tesla Model 3 Long Range
• Tesla Model 3 Performance
• Tesla Model 3 RWD
• Tesla Model Y All-Wheel Drive
• Tesla Model Y Long Range
• Tesla Model Y Performance
• Volkswagen ID.4
• Volkswagen ID.4 AWD, Pro, and S models
• Volvo S60 PHEV *
• Volvo S60 Extended Range
• Volvo S60 T8 Recharge (Extended Range)
* These cars don’t qualify for the full $7,500 subsidy, although they all receive at least a $5,400 tax credit.
** Only some BMW X5 xDrive45e vehicles qualify — it depends where the car was made. Check the VIN or ask the dealership to confirm it was made in North America before buying.
This story was originally published on March 31, 2023. It was last updated on March 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET.
Get the best of Heatmap delivered to your inbox:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Why the shooting in Indianapolis might be a bellwether
This week, the fight over data centers turned violent and it has clearly spooked the sector. Extremism researchers say they’re right to be concerned and this may only be the beginning.
Life may never be the same for Indianapolis city-county councilor Ron Gibson, who voted for a controversial data center last week, citing its economic benefits, and, on the morning of April 6, woke to find 13 bullets were fired through the door of his north-east Indy home. Beneath his doormat read a note left behind: “No Data Centers.” Gibson, who did not respond to multiple requests for additional comment, told the media some of the shots landed near where he played with his child hours earlier.
It was the third incident this year indicating the bubbling angst against data centers really does have potential to turn violent. In February, a man was arrested in Troy, Illinois, for threatening to shoot and kill employees for a data center developer working in his community. In March a California company sued activists fighting their project after they allegedly suggested people assassinate individuals involved with it, invoking infamous murder suspect Luigi Mangione, who allegedly shot and killed a healthcare CEO in 2024.
AI infrastructure boosters were quick to turn the Indianapolis shooting into a chance to broadly criticize those who oppose data centers. The AI Infrastructure Coalition, a new pro-data center D.C. trade group, blasted a statement out to press from co-chairs former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and former Rep. Garret Graves. “Local leaders must be able to represent their community without worrying about the threat of violence,” Sinema and Graves stated. “Opponents of AI infrastructure are using increasingly heated and false language to claim that data centers threaten the wellbeing of communities. This rhetoric has consequences.”
Although I take umbrage with the claim opponents are using “false language” – data centers can bring profound environmental and cost-of-living consequences — one can easily see a powder keg forming online around data centers.
All you have to do is look at discussions of what happened in Indianapolis. News of the event posted to the “Say NO to Data Centers” Facebook group went viral, inviting mostly comments endorsing the shooting. “Good. They should be afraid of an educated and armed population,” reads the top comment, netting almost 640 likes. When I first posted about the shooting to X and Bluesky, my words went wildly viral, becoming some of the most shared content on either site about the incident. Among the most engaged-with replies to my X post: “When you realize that the only way this ends is when people start doing things you can’t post online,” read one. “If they ever caught him and I was in the jury, I’d vote not guilty,” stated another. A third declared, “MOSA - make officials scared again.”
This didn’t surprise Clara Broekaert, a Geneva-based research analyst for The Soufan Center, a nonprofit organization focused on studying global extremism and terrorist threats. Broekaert told me in an interview her organization has been doing “extensive” open-source intelligence surveys to understand the risk of violence over data centers. For the most part, while overwhelmingly negative, people are simply expressing negative perspectives. However, she said that since “early 2024, we have seen a spike in online rhetoric and activism that threatens physical actions against infrastructure and people involved in it.” Most common are comments encouraging arson and sabotage against data centers themselves but increasingly, threats are being levied against people working at development companies and politicians who support data centers. The threats stem from various root causes, she said, ranging from fears their quality of life will be dramatically harmed by data centers to frustrations about water consumption. She pays particular attention to individual county commissioners’ social media pages when conflicts over projects are going on, and hears some of the violent rhetoric crop up in public hearings.
Broekaert doesn’t think we’ll see “a huge uptick in violence against people” but is concerned that “we’ll see more physical sabotage,” especially as political organizing movements against data centers converge – the right-left horseshoe alignment I’ve previously discussed.
“You just see this bottled up resistance against data centers,” she said. “It’s very closely connected to an economic disillusionment.”
Jordyn Abrams, an extremism research fellow at the George Washington University, said there are different strains of violent anti-tech movements to track. In some ways she said these risks can be traced to longstanding histories of eco-terrorism as protest, pointing to a leftwing organization’s arson attack against a Tesla factory in Germany as just one example. On the flip side of the coin, you’ve got ecofascist ideologies warping minds against technology broadly, like what motivated the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand. Of course, there’s also your garden variety unhinged individuals venting anger in unhealthy and dangerous ways.
Irrespective of what brought someone to violence, Abrams said this trend is something anyone involved in the data center boom needs to pay more attention to. “I think there’s a concern when we’re promoting resolving things with violence,” she said, noting these online discussions can become siloed avenues for radicalization. “There’s a growing sentiment that can, in an echo chamber, become an even greater challenge.”
Once again I do not believe that most people who fight data centers are violent and many have valid reasons for their frustrations. But I believe we will likely see more attacks on structures and people involved in this nascent industrial tech boom, and I hope people take this escalating environment seriously.
And more of the week’s top news on project conflicts.
1. Van Zandt County, Texas – The Texas attorney general’s office is investigating a battery storage project by Finnish energy company Taaleri over using energy storage with batteries made by CATL, the Chinese lithium-ion giant.
2. Ozaukee County, Wisconsin – We appear to have the first town approving an anti-data center ballot initiative, as the citizens of Port Washington approved a measure allowing them to reject future hyperscalers.
3. Jefferson County, Missouri – Another local election worth watching happened in the city of Festus, where anti-data center activists successfully ousted incumbent city councilors for supporting a data center.
4. San Diego County, California – The embattled Seguro battery storage project is now dead.
5. Franklin County, Ohio – A longshot bid to ban data centers at the ballot box is proceeding in Ohio after the secretary of state and Ohio Ballot Board approved its consideration.
A conversation with Searchlight Institute's Jane Flegal about America’s aging grid
This week’s conversation is with Jane Flegal, esteemed energy wonk extraordinaire and friend of Heatmap News. I reached out to Jane because she recently authored a paper for a think tank – the Searchlight Institute – focused on how to try and get transmission built to satisfy growing electricity demand without creating the cost pain points that foment discontent on the ground. Y’know, how to avoid the sorts of frustrations we chronicle here at The Fight! So ahead of reporting on transmission conflicts I have coming up next week, it made sense to have a candid conversation about just how hard all of this is.
The following transcript was lightly edited for clarity.
How much of this transmission build-out needed is because of data centers?
We have underinvested in the kind of transmission and grid infrastructure that we need to grow the grid and power basically anything new. We’re seeing regulators and reliability analysts flagging some major concerns. Beyond investing in new capacity, we’re just at the 50-60 year point in an infrastructure and investment cycle. A lot of what we have was built in the 1960s and 1970s. Even if we didn’t grow the grid, there would be significant investment required in our existing infrastructure just to maintain and fix it.
I actually think even if data centers were not on the horizon at all, there would be real concerns about who and how to pay for reinvestment into the grid. The question of what this growth requires for the grid, most of the analysis mapping out what we need to do to decarbonize is that we’ll need to 2x or 3x the grid to electrify everything.
When you drill down into it, the utilities were going to need to build some of this stuff anyway. There was going to have to be huge transmission and distribution investments, regardless of data center load growth. Wildfire hardening in the West. There’s deferred maintenance coming due.
It’s also true we did not anticipate the quality of demand data centers represent and it’s so sudden and so big. The demand is so centralized. It’s a different shape of demand for what we expected for electric vehicle infrastructure, for example. It’s unique.
Then there’s the question of what’s attributable to this kind of large load growth. What’s the incremental investment that wouldn’t have been made but for these data centers? If it’s a big new transmission corridor to reach a data center campus, we don’t necessarily want those things to be socialized across the rate base. So you see multi-billion dollar transmission plans in some states where the utility or a state government will say this is due to data center demand, so it’s hard to separate those things entirely.
But what I find frustrating about the affordability conversations is these are investments we would need to make anyway and/or would be societally useful even if the data center doesn’t materialize. Not to mention that we haven’t totally figured out how to deal with that! If the assumption is that no new infrastructure is good or desirable, that’s not good. That’s bad.
The question is, who pays? Funding things through the rate base is super regressive. Electric bills represent a higher share of low-income earners’ income and so it's not a good way to fund big things. A meta question is, who should be paying for all this stuff? The data centers should pay for what they created and are demanding.
It feels like what you’re getting at here is the need for some financing backstop to blunt the impact on ratepayers. The local folks, people who don’t see how transmission will make their lives easier.
I think what I’m trying to resolve is, you need to have a mechanism to make needed investment in transmission infrastructure investable without socializing all of the cost.
Right now we’re in a lucky position because we have large customers with capital and a willingness to spend it for speed-to-power. They can help on this front both by engaging in take-or-pay commitments where they commit legally to being the offtaker and by doing up-front financing themselves in the transmission. This is a real challenge though, which is why I was trying to think creatively.
As you said, transmission investment if planned well and permitted on time can make things cheaper and more stable over time. But the investment has to happen and be paid for somehow. This has always been an issue.
I was speaking with an environmentalist in Virginia earlier this week about transmission. This is someone who doesn’t want to build a lot more transmission explicitly for data centers. So I raised the question of, weren’t we just talking about how we need more transmission for the climate? Why are you against these projects then? And what this person said was that the transmission for data centers was eating up utility funding that could go to renewable energy and could power other demand sources.
Is the question that utilities are spending on this stuff to satisfy data center demand and therefore won’t be investing in projects to power our lives? Or is it more complicated?
It’s a fair concern here and it goes back to our planning processes. If you build a transmission corridor for a data center in Virginia, that's different from a high-voltage line from the wind farms in the West to load centers in Chicago. I see what they’re saying. But the truth is the U.S. needs dramatically more transmission for electrification no matter what. The grid cannot accommodate the decarbonization required and we can’t move power from the best resource centers to load centers. That was all needed before the hyperscalers started building.
The data center build-out is an accelerant bringing forward all this investment that is already needed. If it is planned correctly it can help electrification goals simultaneously. And the “if planned correctly” part does a lot of work.
But are tech companies investing in the transmission?
They certainly are. But it's another area where we haven’t made it particularly easy for them to do that. They’ve committed to spending quite a lot of money on infrastructure but most of it is not grid. Google is investing for example into advanced conductors onto the grid, which is a shared investment that’ll benefit the public. To date however, most of the hyperscale investment is the requirements for their own load, not system contribution. That’s what I was trying to propose in my paper.
Voluntary pledges are not going to be enough. But can you get a state to condition tax benefits for data centers on a set of conditions, like dedicated capacity payments. Ideally some mechanism to invest in the broader grid. It’s a big ask of them though, it's worth saying.
Right now the barrier is we can’t plan and permit the lines to begin with, so there’s nothing for them to invest in, and my biggest concern is them just going behind-the-meter.
I think the thing that’s important here is that there’s a set of questions around what data centers can do directly with their capital and a set of questions around the policy and regulatory agenda for the grid. What I’d say is we’re having an active debate on the Hill right now about federal permitting and as a part of that conversation, we're talking about transmission. We’ve tried to do a better job at this and repeatedly failed, partially due to opposition from utilities and states at a time of flat or declining demand.
That is changing; we have large, powerful customers with a lot of money and political power who can advocate for the permitting reform we need to solve structural issues here. I think now is the moment where we have the political coalition to do this. We were never going to solve this by having climate advocates yell at FERC.